Obama Approval Rating Not Hurt By Scandals: CNN/ORC International Poll

[Mayhem]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/19/obama-approval-rating_n_3302580.html

A new poll shows that recent scandals haven't hurt President Obama's approval rating.

The poll, from CNN and ORC International, found that 53% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, while 45% disapproved. This number remains virtually unchanged from polls taken before the scandals hit.

The poll was taken on May 17th and 18th, and has a 3% margin of error.

A CNN poll taken in early April showed Obama's approval rating to be 51%. According to a Gallup poll taken in early May, the president's approval rating was 50%.

The CNN poll also found that 71% of Americans find the actions of the IRS employees who targeted Tea Party groups to be unacceptable. However, 6 in 10 respondents said they trusted the president's statements on the issue.

Last week was a rough one for the administration, as news broke that the IRS had been unfairly targeting Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status. Additionally, it was revealed that the Justice Department had subpoenaed phone records from the Associated Press. The White House also faced continue scrutiny on the attacks in Benghazi.

It's the AP thing that really cracks me up. First the Repubs wouldn't shut up about the administration's lack of handling of leaks. Now they won't shut up because the administration is handling the leaks.

 

[Sam Fisher]

 

[Mayhem]

Rasmussen was what you used to make your hysterically stupid "Romney in a Landslide" predictions. If you couldn't be counted on to make the dumbest possible choice in all you do, you'd find another source. :nono:

 

[Sam Fisher]

Huff & Puff Post / CNN

 

[xfire]

Huff & Puff Post / CNN

How well did Huff and CNN do in their election polling?

 

[Johan]

March 16 ratings :
Democrats : 85%
Republicans : 14%
Independant : 39%
Overall : 47%

April 19th ratings :
Democrats : 80%
Republican : 13%
Independant : 46%
Overall : 47%

Source : http://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/index.html
(Yeah, I use Fox News, so you can't say "These figures aren't trustworthy 'cause come from liberal-biased medias".)

 

[Deepcover]

Why is the media trying to make this look like Watergate?

 

[Mayhem]

Why is the media trying to make this look like Watergate?

For the same reason Nancy Grace only covers murders commited by hot chicks: Ratings. The more they blow shit out of proportion, the more viewers they get.

 

[Deepcover]

^^^^
I see

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Personally, I find his action repugnant, and treasonous, and I believe he, and most of his administration should be held criminally accountable...and whether you believe it or not, I would say the same thing if Ron Paul would have won.

We as a country, have no reason to be proud of our leaders, and we need to stop this. The logical course, is a long one, but we need to start. If you're in, you're out, and if you're out, you're in...term limits need to be looked at, and lobbyists need to be eliminated. We also need to remember, these people...and I use that term loosely, are elected EMPLOYEES...if they fuck up, they need to be fired, just like any other emplyoee, that screws up his job.

 

[D-rock]

Part of the issue is that most polls are only have a binomial answer that can't always reflect how many people really feel.

Me for example. Do I despise Obama? Not really. Do I think he's doing a good job? Not really to that also. It's not so much as I "approve" of him as I find his presidency to become something that is just "meh" with a lot of bad traits thrown in there, and declining good ones as time goes on. I don't disapprove of him in the way people don't disapprove of something that they see isn't a total disaster. That's not saying much though. He's not as bad as W. Bush whom I would have no trouble having disapproval of, but Obama has become a pretty bland president, and considering the hype and hope for him when he came into office he's been becoming more disappointing as time goes on.

Even the once good things about him have morphed into qualities where he has shamelessly become just like all other politicians.

 

[mikexmoran]

Against my better judgement, I'll weigh in with my mixed feelings. (I do so a couple of years back on here and got dragged down into the mud by a member who didn't like to hear about any potential improvements about Obama. Thankfully he is gone. ...or at least his persona is.)

If there is a problem, it is mostly likely with the government overall. Nothing new from me here. The Republican Congress still doesn't seem to want to compromise. Also, while I voted for this President twice, it was really not because I felt he was the best person for the job, but the best of the two running.

I don't see him as a bad president. I don't agree with all of his policies. I do think he is a below average leader. The problems with Congress are a problem. It would be his time to rise to the challenge. It is easy to pass legislation when the government is controlled by your party. It is tough when there is a portion of it that is pitted against you. Perhaps, since I don't agree with everything he wants, it is a good thing that he has lack luster leadership and is unable to move Congress.

I enjoy reading "The Week". It is a bit of a Reader's Digest version of news, but they try to balance the news. Here is an article that describes some of the President's struggles.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/246801/president-obama-flounderer-in-chief

 

[Fikachu]

It's hard for me to take this CNN/ORC poll seriously

Why is the media trying to make this look like Watergate?

If you ask me, these Obama scandals are worse than Watergate

 

[mikexmoran]

Personally, I find his action repugnant, and treasonous, and I believe he, and most of his administration should be held criminally accountable...and whether you believe it or not, I would say the same thing if Ron Paul would have won.

We as a country, have no reason to be proud of our leaders, and we need to stop this. The logical course, is a long one, but we need to start. If you're in, you're out, and if you're out, you're in...term limits need to be looked at, and lobbyists need to be eliminated. We also need to remember, these people...and I use that term loosely, are elected EMPLOYEES...if they fuck up, they need to be fired, just like any other emplyoee, that screws up his job.

You've got a bit of logic in here that I tend to agree with - vote 'em out. With people so unhappy with our leaders, why haven't we done that. Outside of the President, the other leaders are local. You don't get to vote my bum out. If I happen to like my bum for whatever reason, he is in there.

Just looking at the job numbers this morning. I'm optimistic. I think the numbers are going to encourage some pessimism. However, my thinking is that since the job market is picking up the folks that gave up on looking for work are going to come back into the market and it will reflect negatively on the numbers. I wouldn't be too pessimistic about that. It is actually a positive sign.

This certainly is no Reagan recovery. (I'm a Supply Side theorist, but not a Supply Sider - I don't think it works in the wild.) I remember a few years ago staunch supporters saying that Obama took a "brick bat" to the economy and that the Obama Recovery was must stronger than the Reagan recovery. That didn't seem to be the case. Nor is it the point. ...anyway sorry for the economic stream of conscience.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

It's hard for me to take this CNN/ORC poll seriously




If you ask me, these Obama scandals are worse than Watergate

You cannot be serious??? Oh wait I see your age now. Read up some on the subject before you say silly things.

 

[Rey C.]

You've got a bit of logic in here that I tend to agree with - vote 'em out. With people so unhappy with our leaders, why haven't we done that. Outside of the President, the other leaders are local. You don't get to vote my bum out. If I happen to like my bum for whatever reason, he is in there.

I do agree with you in large part. But our system is not one where we can just vote people out. We must vote someone else in and replace them. And therein lies the challenge: who to vote in? Replacing one doofus with another never solves anything - and that tends to be what we, the voters, do.

Just looking at the job numbers this morning. I'm optimistic. I think the numbers are going to encourage some pessimism. However, my thinking is that since the job market is picking up the folks that gave up on looking for work are going to come back into the market and it will reflect negatively on the numbers. I wouldn't be too pessimistic about that. It is actually a positive sign.

This certainly is no Reagan recovery. (I'm a Supply Side theorist, but not a Supply Sider - I don't think it works in the wild.) I remember a few years ago staunch supporters saying that Obama took a "brick bat" to the economy and that the Obama Recovery was must stronger than the Reagan recovery. That didn't seem to be the case. Nor is it the point. ...anyway sorry for the economic stream of conscience.

^^^This is why I enjoy reading your posts. Good summation/stream of thought. :thumbsup:

I was also a child of Supply Side Theory, mainly because of where I went to school and who my macro Econ professors were. But as I grew older, I learned to not treat Supply Side as a religion (the way that many on the far right do), but more as one of the possible tools in an economic tool box. I mean, one wouldn't use a hammer when trying to tighten a bolt, right? And one wouldn't use a wrench when trying to drive a nail. Our Great Recession had more in common with the Great Depression of the 1930's than what we faced when Reagan came to power. First and foremost, Reagan (and Volker ) were facing high unemployment and a stagnant economy, but with high inflation. What we faced in 2007-08-> was high unemployment and a stagnant economy, but downward spiraling disinflation, which could have easily turned to dreaded (and extremely hard to cure) deflation. And just lowering income tax rates (or deregulating) would have very little effect on deflation. Just doesn't work that way - do you agree? I don't think most Americans have any idea of how much more serious deflation is compared to inflation. All many can relate to is the unemployment side of the discussion, and I appreciate that. But by lacking a full understanding of basic macro economics, they tend to support people who want to explore populist, knee-jerk things like eliminating the Fed and doing away with any sort of stimulus that can't be called "Supply Side"/cut taxes & deregulate. So as we've now seen, many of the bums we threw out were replaced by some of the most ignorant, ill-advised and backwards people I have ever had the displeasure of recognizing. Some others may hate him. But I am so thankful for Ben Bernanke. God help us all if we'd had some teabagger or wingnut over the Fed during this time. We'd be in worse shape than Greece and Spain combined. Instead, we're in not such bad shape, relatively speaking.

I had to work to fire a plant manager at a facility a couple of years ago. But before I went too far in planning his exit, I had to first make sure that we didn't replace him with someone even worse. And for whatever reason, the American people seem to have a rare talent for going from bad to worse.

 

[mikexmoran]

I do agree with you in large part. But our system is not one where we can just vote people out. We must vote someone else in and replace them. And therein lies the challenge: who to vote in? Replacing one doofus with another never solves anything - and that tends to be what we, the voters, do.

Yeah...good point. The point I was making that you only have control over your politicians, not the rest of them. Of course, your point is pretty dead on...who the f' would you be voting in with that strategy? Beevis or Butthead in many cases.

^^^This is why I enjoy reading your posts. Good summation/stream of thought. :thumbsup:

Thank you kindly.

I was also a child of Supply Side Theory, mainly because of where I went to school and who my macro Econ professors were. But as I grew older, I learned to not treat Supply Side as a religion (the way that many on the far right do), but more as one of the possible tools in an economic tool box. I mean, one wouldn't use a hammer when trying to tighten a bolt, right? And one wouldn't use a wrench when trying to drive a nail. Our Great Recession had more in common with the Great Depression of the 1930's than what we faced when Reagan came to power.

Yes!

First and foremost, Reagan (and Volker ) were facing high unemployment and a stagnant economy, but with high inflation. What we faced in 2007-08-> was high unemployment and a stagnant economy, but downward spiraling disinflation, which could have easily turned to dreaded (and extremely hard to cure) deflation. And just lowering income tax rates (or deregulating) would have very little effect on deflation. Just doesn't work that way - do you agree?

Yes. People have written volumes on this.

I don't think most Americans have any idea of how much more serious deflation is compared to inflation. All many can relate to is the unemployment side of the discussion, and I appreciate that. But by lacking a full understanding of basic macro economics, they tend to support people who want to explore populist, knee-jerk things like eliminating the Fed and doing away with any sort of stimulus that can't be called "Supply Side"/cut taxes & deregulate. So as we've now seen, many of the bums we threw out were replaced by some of the most ignorant, ill-advised and backwards people I have ever had the displeasure of recognizing. Some others may hate him. But I am so thankful for Ben Bernanke. God help us all if we'd had some teabagger or wingnut over the Fed during this time. We'd be in worse shape than Greece and Spain combined. Instead, we're in not such bad shape, relatively speaking.

I had to work to fire a plant manager at a facility a couple of years ago. But before I went too far in planning his exit, I had to first make sure that we didn't replace him with someone even worse. And for whatever reason, the American people seem to have a rare talent for going from bad to worse.

Employment is important. The Tea Party, I believe, have shown they are all about emotion and very little about gravitas.
I've heard people rail about Bernake being in the Obama camp. I don't see how. Certainly, he tries to work with him, he was Bush's pick and a Bush advisor. It will be interesting to see how the economy responds to taking the foot off the gas petal to the QE.

 

[Rattrap]

I do agree with you in large part. But our system is not one where we can just vote people out. We must vote someone else in and replace them. And therein lies the challenge: who to vote in? Replacing one doofus with another never solves anything - and that tends to be what we, the voters, do.
[...]
I had to work to fire a plant manager at a facility a couple of years ago. But before I went too far in planning his exit, I had to first make sure that we didn't replace him with someone even worse. And for whatever reason, the American people seem to have a rare talent for going from bad to worse.

I think the problem here is that one has to look past Beavis and Butthead, which are of course the R and D that have all the money to get splashed over everything in any given district/state/etc. Which means the vast majority of voters won't even know these other people are running until they see the names on the ballot. For me, I think this is the problem: the average voter watches political ads and thinks this makes them informed enough to vote (or just doesn't care about being informed, which is probably more likely); little to no effort is put in to actually research...well, anything.

Putting it another way...there were six names on the Oregon ballot for President, and if I were to ask random Oregonians what those names were, I'd rarely get more than two*. And we even get a cool voter information pamphlet weeks in advance because we have vote-by-mail.

*Although in saying this, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein did each grab a little more than 1% of the Oregon vote which together amounts to around 43,000 people...people voting for actual change.

 

[Straight Shooter]

"Obama Approval Rating Not Hurt By Scandals"

2018: Trump Approval Rating Not Hurt By Scandals